LESSON NO. 1 AUTHOR: DR. RAJDEEP ROY

Transcription

1 M.A. (JMC) PART-II SEMESTER-III LESSON NO. 1 PAPER IX RESEARCH APPLICATIONS AUTHOR: DR. RAJDEEP ROY The Mass Concept And Models of Communication The Structure: The concept of mass-features-behavior -Mass audience -Models of communication -Functions of models -Aristotle s model -Shannon Weaver model -Lasswell s model -Schramm s model -Berlo s model -Gerbner s mode -Westley and MacLean s model -DeFleur s model-hub s model -Summary -Key terms -References The Concept of Mass: The term mass was first used to refer the common people. Herbert Blumer described mass as a special type of social formation in the modern society. Mass is different from crowd, public and group. The members of mass are anonymous independent individuals whose credentials cannot be established through simple physical means. Mass behavior is homogeneous, spontaneous, elementary and endogenous. Features of Mass: Mass is the alienated group of individuals who features the objects and areas of life. The following features of mass are significant to understand mass society. 1. Mass has a huge aggregate. 2. Mass is a symbol of power and dignity of people. 3. Mass cannot be differentiated. 4. It is spread over a large geographical territory. 5. Mass cannot be arranged in order. 6. It reflects the expectations and characteristics of the mass society. The Mass Behavior: Unlike crowd, mass is guided by the individual intentions of action. The individual intentions of action are forms of selections. Selection of a product, selecting a venue, voting for a political candidate are all forms of selection which depend on individual intentions and act individually. These selections are often done on vogue impulses created by mass interest. When mass acts for organized movement, then it becomes mass behavior. Consequently, the behavior gets structure and thus, creates culture, rules, attitudes and consciousness.

2 2 The Mass Audience: After the advent of radio and cinema, the term audience was coined. Later, television added more significance to its existence. The term mass audience becomes more significant when we illustrate it from the viewpoint of media effect studies. Generally, mass audience is not organized. It is heterogeneous and widely spred. Its membership is very large with diverse demographic features. The members of mass audience do not interact with each other and remain anonymous. As they are often manipulated by the media and corporate sectors many a times, the elite member of audiences refuse to be exploited and they criticize and attack when they realize that the media is going out of control. THE DOMINANT PARADIGM OF DEVELOPMENT: Dominant paradigm refers to the values, or system of thought, in a society that are most standard and widely held at a given time. Dominant paradigms are shaped both by the community's cultural background and by the context of the historical moment. In his article THE DOMINANT PARADIGM OF DEVELOPMENT, 1976, Everett M. Rogers stated that, through the late 1960s, a dominant paradigm ruled intellectual definitions and discussions of development and guided national development programs. This concept of development grew out of certain historical events, such as the Industrial Revolution in Europe and the United States, the colonial experience in Latin America Africa, and Asia, the quantitative empiricism of North American social science, and capitalistic economic/political philosophy. Implicit in the ruling paradigm were numerous assumptions which were generally thought to be valid, or at least were not widely questioned, until about the 1970s. The dominant paradigm sought to explain the transition from traditional to modern societies. In the 19 50s, the traditional systems were the nations of Latin America, Africa, and Asia. All were relatively poor, with GNPs averaging about onefifth or less than those of the developed nations of Europe and North America. Almost all were former colonies (the African and Asian nations more recently so), and most were still highly dependent on the developed nations for trade, capital, technology, and, in many cases, for their national language, dress, institutions, and other cultural items. It seemed that the developing nations were less able to control their environment and were more likely to be influenced by unexpected perturbations in their surroundings. In these several respects, the developing countries seemed to be somehow "inferior" to the developed nations, but of course with the hope-for potential of catching up in their overall development. The developed nations of the West were taken as the ideal toward which the developing

3 3 states should aspire. The development of traditional societies into modern ones was a contemporary intellectual extension of social Darwinian evolution. In Theory and Research: The early generation of development communication studies was dominated by modernization theory. This theory suggested that cultural and information deficits lie underneath development problems, and therefore could not be resolved only through economic assistance (a la Marshall Plan in post-war Europe). Instead, the difficulties in Third World countries were at least partially related to the existence of a traditional culture that inhibited development. Third World countries lacked the necessary culture to move into a modern stage. Culture was viewed as the 'bottleneck' that prevented the adoption of modern attitudes and behavior. McClelland (1961) and Hagen (1962), for example, understood that personalities determined social structure. Traditional personalities, characterized by authoritarianism, low self-esteem, and resistance to innovation, were diametrically different from modern personalities and, consequently, anti-development. These studies best illustrated one of modernization's central tenets: ideas are the independent variable that explains specific outcomes. Based on this diagnosis, development communication proposed that changes in ideas would result in transformations in behavior. The underlying premise, originated in classic sociological theories, was that there is a necessary fitness between a 'modern' culture and economic and political development. The low rate of agricultural output, the high rate of fertility and mortality, or the low rates of literacy found in the underdeveloped world were explained by the persistence of traditional values and attitudes that prevented modernization. The goal was, therefore, to instill modern values and information through the transfer of media technology and the adoption of innovations and culture originated in the developed world. The Western model of development was upheld as the model to be emulated worldwide. Because the problem of underdeveloped regions was believed to be an information problem, communication was presented as the instrument that would solve it. As theorized by Daniel Lerner (1958) and Wilbur Schramm (1964), communication basically meant the transmission of information. Exposure to mass media was one of the factors among others (e.g. urbanization, literacy) that could bring about modern attitudes. This knowledge-transfer model defined the

4 4 field for years to come. Both Lerner's and Schramm's analyses and recommendations had a clear pro-media, pro-innovation, and pro-persuasion focus. The emphasis was put on media-centered persuasion activities that could improve literacy and, in turn, allow populations to break free from traditionalism. This view of change originated in two communication models. One was the Shannon-Weaver model of sender-receiver, originally developed in engineering studies that set out to explain the transmission of information among machines. It became extremely influential in communication studies. The other was the propaganda model developed during World War II according to which the mass media had 'magic bullet' effects in changing attitudes and behavior. From a transmission/persuasion perspective, communication was understood as a linear, unidirectional process in which senders send information through media channels to receivers. Consequently, development communication was equated with the massive introduction of media technologies to promote modernization, and the widespread adoption of the mass media (newspapers, radio, cinemas, and later television) was seen as pivotal for the effectiveness of communication interventions. The media were both channels and indicators of modernization. They would serve as the agents of diffusion of modern culture, and also, suggested the degree of modernization of society. The emphasis on the diffusion of media technologies meant that modernization could be measured and quantified in terms of media penetration. The number of television and radio sets and newspaper consumption were accepted as indicators of modern attitudes (Lerner 1958, Inkeles & Smith 1974). Statistics produced by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) showing the penetration of newspapers, radio and television sets became proxy of development. Researchers found that in countries where people were more exposed to modern media, more favorable attitudes towards modernization and development. Based on these findings, national governments and specialists agreed to use the media as instrument for the dissemination of modern ideas that would improve agriculture, health, education, and politics. So-called 'small' media such as publications, posters and leaflets were also recommended as crucial to the success of what became known as Development Support Communication, that is, the creation of the human environment necessary for a development program to succeed (Agunga 1997).

5 5 The 'diffusion of innovations' theory elaborated by Everett Rogers (1962, 1983) became one of the most influential modernization theories. It has been said that Rogers' model has ruled development communication for decades and became the blueprint for communication activities in development. Rogers' intention was to understand the adoption of new behaviors. The premise was that innovations diffuse over time according to individuals' stages. Having reviewed over 500 empirical studies in the early 1960s, Rogers posited five stages through which an individual passes in the adoption of innovations: awareness, knowledge and interest, decision, trial, and adoption/rejection. Populations were divided in different groups according to their propensity to incorporate innovations and timing in actually adopting them. Rogers proposed that early adopters act as models to emulate and generate a climate of acceptance and an appetite for change, and those who are slow to adopt are laggards. This latter category was assumed to describe the vast majority of the population in the Third World. For Rogers, the subculture of the peasantry offered important psychological constraints on the incorporation of innovations, and consequently, development. His view on development reflected the transmission bias also found in Lerner and Schramm. According to Rogers, development communications entailed a 'process by which an idea is transferred from a source to a receiver with the intent to change his behavior. Usually the source wants to alter the receiver's knowledge about some idea, create or change his attitude toward the idea, or persuade him to adopt the idea as part of his regular behavior' (Rogers 1962). However, diverging from the media-centrism and 'magic bullet' theory of effects that underpinned earlier analyses, Rogers and subsequent diffusion studies concluded that the media had a great importance in increasing awareness but interpersonal communication and personal sources were crucial in making decisions to adopt innovations. This revision incorporated insights from the opinion leader theory (Katz and Lazarsfeld 1955) according to which there are two steps in information flow: from the media to opinion leaders, and from leaders to the masses. Media audiences rely on the opinions of members of their social networks rather solely or mainly on the mass media. In contrast to powerful media effects models that suggested a direct relation between the mass media and the masses, Lazarsfeld and Katz found that interpersonal relations were crucial in channeling and shaping opinion. This

6 6 insight was incorporated in diffusion studies, which proposed that both exposure to mass media and face-to-face interaction were necessary to induce effective change. The effectiveness of field workers in transmitting information in agricultural development projects also suggested the importance of interpersonal networks in disseminating innovations (Hornik 1988). Confirming Lerner's and Schramm's ideas, another important finding of diffusion research was that what motivate change are not economics but communication and culture. This is what studies on how farmers adopted new methods showed. Such studies were particularly influential because a substantial amount of early efforts targeted agricultural development in the Third World (Rogers 1983). Other applications targeted literacy programs and health issues, mainly family planning and nutrition. In the mid-1970s, main representatives of modernization/diffusion theories considered it necessary to review some basic premises (Rogers 1976, 1983). In a widely quoted article, Rogers admitted 'the passing of the dominant paradigm.' Schramm and Rogers recognized that early views had individualistic and psychological biases. It was necessary to be sensitive to the specific sociocultural environment in which communication took place, an issue that was neglected in early analyses. To a large extent, these revisions resulted from the realization that the trickle down model that was originally championed was not proven to be effective in instrumenting change. The stages model remained but the top-down perspective according to which innovations diffuse from above needed modification. Critical Paradigm: Critical theories share some ideas of the interpretative paradigm, but what makes it different is that critical paradigm focuses on oppression. Critical social scientists believe it necessary to understand the lived experience of real people in context. Persons can perceive reality outside them and represent that reality with language. Also, reality is defined by the interaction between the knower and the known. Critical approaches examine social conditions and uncover oppressive power arrangements. The theories found in this paradigm critique the known structure of social arrangement, and deny the existence of any true enduring one. They suggest, instead, a certain group has an explicit political agenda, which struggles with culture and other groups interests. In the field of communication, critical scholars are particularly interested in how messages reinforce oppression in society. No aspect of life is interest free, even science. They believe there are some

7 7 groups who benefit from oppressing others, so their main jobs are to point out the existing contradictions, in order to help people be aware of what is really going on, and create new forms of language that will enable predominant ideology to be exposed and competing ideologies to be heard. The Models of Communication: Since 1940, there has been a big quest for communication models. The communication models help to understand how the process works, how it develops and how it affects. The communication process is an evolving phenomenon and a model represents this phenomenon in abstract terms. A communication model helps in understanding and generalizing communication, an extremely complex process. The functions of models: A model helps in visualizing the different processes of the same communication phenomenon. It highlights the sequence of every important event. The sequence makes huge difference in creating meaning. Model creates a pattern for every communication process and that pattern focuses on flow of information and the nature of the interaction. The model suggests that each participant involved in the communication process contribute to the meaning and those meanings designate them according to their function as source, recipients etc. The basic types: There are two basic types of communication models: Linear and Non-linear. The linear models are unidirectional. They portray the process of sending message from speaker to audience with or without effect. The linear models can be vertical and horizontal as well. On the other hand, in non-linear models, the message flow is bi-directional or multi-directional. The non-linear models are circular and convergence models. Here is a brief discussion on the basic models that have evolved over time. Aristotle s Model of Communication: Aristotle s model is known to be the earliest model of communication. This linear model consists of five elements that are essential for a communication to take place. These are: the speaker, the speech i.e. the message, the audience, the occasion and the effect. Aristotle suggests that the message is constructed on different occasions for different audience with different effects. This linear and simple model is considered for public speaking or mass communication. Speaker Speech Audience Effect

8 8 Occasion Aristotle s model of communication Shannon and Weaver Model of Communication (the transmission model): The Shannon and Weaver Model of communication is called the mathematical model. This model was proposed in the year 1949 by Claude Elwood Shannon who was an American mathematician, Electronic engineer and Warren Weaver who was an American scientist. In the study of communication, the Shannon-weaver model is called the Mother of all models. This model suggests that a message is sent through a communication channel, changed into signals and received by the receiver. Meanwhile, some distortions are added to the signal which were not present at the time of sending it. This distortion is termed as noise. Information source Transmitter Receiver Destination Message Signal Received signal Message Noise source Shannon and Weaver Model of Communication The three significant components of this model were introduced for the first time in communication study. The components are: the channel noise, the semantic noise and feedback. The noise in channel is the technical interferences that are present in transmission. The semantic noise is cognitive. It occurs when the message is misunderstood. Lasswell s model of Communication: In 1948, Harold D Lasswell, an American political scientist and communication theorist proposed a communication model that is similar to the

9 9 model of Aristotle. This model suggests a message is sent to multiple audiences through various channels. Communication Components Who Says What In What Channel To Whom With What Effect Research Area Control Analysis Content Analysis Media Analysis Audience Analysis Effect Analysis Lasswell s Model of Communication The model argues that the Who is referred to control, the Says what is referred to the content, the In Which Channel means the media, the To Whom is referred to the audience, and the With What Effect is referred to feedback. All these five components are areas of research and subjected to analysis. Communication model of Wilbur Schramm: Wilbur Schramm postulated his Model of Communication in He argued that communication is a two way process. Both the sender and the receiver participate to send and receive the message. The message is encoded by the sender and then sent to the receiver. So, the sender is also called Encoder. The encoded message is decoded by the receiver, and thus the receiver is the Decoder. This model is also known as Osgood and Schramm Model of Communication or Encode- Decode Model of Communication as it was adapted from the theories of another theorist Osgood. While the Osgood s concept was communication to be the circular process of communication, Schramm added the concept of field of experience to the model.

10 10 Later in 1970, Schramm concentrated on his relational model which emphasized on the effects of communication on the recipient s part. The concept of effect analysis was influenced by Berlo s model of Schramm argued that audience equally contributes to the communication process. SENDER MESSAGE CHANNEL RECEIVER EFFECTS Wilbur Schramm s Model of Communication (1973) Berlo s model of Communication: In 1960, David Berlo came up with many components of the process in communication. The basic components were as usual as any other theorists.

11 11 However, Berlo uttered some sub components along with the very concept of effect in communication for the first time. Berlo suggested that every message has a positive or negative effect on the receiver s mind and that effect can be traced and assessed through effect analysis. SOURCE MESSAGE CHANNEL RECEIVER EFFECT Communication Skills Elements Seeing Communication Skills Attitudes Structure Hearing Attitudes Knowledge Content Touching Knowledge Social system Treatment Smelling Social system Culture Code Tasting Culture Berlo s Model of Communication Gerbner s Model of Communication: George Gerbner is known to be one of the pioneers in the field of communication research. In 1956, Gerbner attempted the general purpose of communication models. He emphasized on the dynamic nature of communication in his work and the factors affecting the reliability of communication.

12 12 This model of Gerbner is best understood and described in two dimentions, the Perceptual Dimension and the Means and Controls dimension. According to perceptual dimension, E is an event that happens in the real life. The event content is the message which is perceived by M (Man or a Machine). The message from E after perceiving by M is known as E1. E1 is not same as like E as any man or machine can never perceive the whole event and they perceive only the part of the event (E1). There are three factors involved between E and M : Selection Context Availability As M (man or machine) cannot perceive the entire content of the event E, therefore, M selects the interesting or needed content from the entire event and

13 13 filtering the others. The context occurs in the event and Availability is based on M s attitude, mood, culture and personality. According to the Means and Controls dimension, E2 is the event content. It is drawn by M. Here M becomes the source of a message about E to send someone else. M creates a statement or signals about the message and Gerbner termed its Form and content as SE2. S (Signal or Form) it takes and E2 (Man s content). Here Content (E2) is structured or formed (S) by M and it can communicate in a different ways or based on the structured ways. M has to use channels (or media) over to send the message which he has a greater or lesser degree of control. The question of control relates to M s degree of skill in using communication channels. Westley and MacLean Model of Communication: The Westley and MacLean s model of communication was proposed by Bruce Westley and Malcolm S. MacLean Jr in Westely and Maclean realized that communication does not begin when one person starts to talk, but rather when a person responds selectively to the physical surroundings. This model suggests that there is a strong relation between responses from surroundings and the process of communication. When a person receives a message from surroundings based on their object of orientation, and then the communication process begins.

14 14 X1, X2, X3 and X4. are news articles or information, Feedback (f), Clients (A), Reader or Audience (B) and Gate Keeper (c) DeFleur Model of Mass Communication System: The theory De fleur model of communication is the expanded version of Shannon and weaver model of communication. It is based on the Westley & Maclean model of communication that talked about the circular process of communication with feedback from the receiver. Shannon and Weaver model explains the role of noise in the communication process. Westley & Maclean model describes a two way communication. They introduced the important component Linear Feedback in the communication model for the first time. De fleur combine these two models. De Fleur inserted the Mass Media device in their model and suggested the communication is a circular process and it gives two way feedback. Another

15 15 significant component called noise may occur at any stage of the whole communication process. The source, transmitter, receiver and destination are present in separate phases of mass communication. Feedback device analyze the target audience who is separate from the receiver. HUB Model of Communication: Hiebert, Urgurait and Bohn model of communication is a set of concentric circles. It s representation is quite like water waves when a pebble is thrown. The pebble can be exemplified as the content that causes ripples which widens until they hit the shore i.e. the audience and eventually bounce back as feedback. S A Reception theory: Reception theory is a version of reader response literary theory that emphasizes each particular reader's reception or interpretation in making meaning from a literary text. Reception theory is generally referred to as audience reception in the analysis of communication models. In literary studies, reception theory originated from the work of Hans-Robert Jauss in the late 1960s, and the most influential work was produced during the 1970s and early 1980s in Germany and the US (Fortier 132), with some notable work done in other Western European countries. A form of reception theory has also been applied to the study of historiography, as detailed in Reception history. The cultural theorist Stuart Hall has been one of the main proponents of reception theory, having developed it for media and communication studies from the literary and history-oriented approaches mentioned above. His approach, called the encoding/decoding model of communication, is a form of textual analysis that focuses on the scope of "negotiation" and "opposition" by the audience. This means that a "text" be it a book, movie, or other creative work is not simply passively accepted by the audience, but that the reader/viewer interprets the meanings of the

16 16 text based on her or his individual cultural background and life experiences. In essence, the meaning of a text is not inherent within the text itself, but is created within the relationship between the text and the reader. Hall also developed a theory of encoding and decoding, Hall's Theory, which focuses on the communication processes at play in texts that are in tele-visual form. Reception theory has since been extended to the spectators of performative events, focusing predominantly on the theatre. Susan Bennett is often credited with beginning this discourse. Reception theory has also been applied to the history and analysis of landscapes, through the work of the landscape historian John Dixon Hunt, as Hunt recognized that the survival of gardens and landscapes is largely related to their public reception. The comparison of models: Davis Foulger, a research consultant states in his article titled Models of the Communication Process that Models are a fundamental building block of theory. They are also a fundamental tool of instruction. Shannon's information theory model, Weiner's Cybernetic model, and Katz' two step flow each allowed scholars decompose the process of communication into discrete structural elements. Each provides the basis for considerable bodies of communication theory and research. Each model provides teachers with a powerful pedagogical tool for teaching students to understand that communication is a complex process in which many things can, and frequently do, go wrong; for teaching students the ways in which they can perfect different skills at different points in the communication process to become more effective communicators. But while Shannon's model has proved effective across the primary divides in the field of communication, the other models Katz' and Weiner's models have not. Indeed, they in many ways exemplify that divide and the differences in what is taught in courses oriented to interpersonal communication and mass communication. Weiner's cybernetic model accentuates the interactive structure of communication. Katz' model accentuates its production structure. Students of interpersonal communication are taught, through the use of the interactive/cybernetic and transactive models that attending to the feedback of their audience is an important part of being an effective communicator. Students of mass communication are taught, through the intermediary/gatekeeper/two-step flow model, that controlled production processes are an important part of being an effective communicator. The difference is a small one and there is no denying that both attention to feedback and attention to detail are critical skills of effective communicators, but mass media programs focus heavily on the minutiae of

17 17 production, interpersonal programs focus heavily on the munitiae of attention to feedback. Despite the fact that both teach message productions the languages used in message production, and the details of the small range of media that each typically covers, they discuss different media, to some extent different languages, and different approaches to message production. These differences, far more than more obvious differences like audience size or technology, are the divides that seperate the study of interpersonal communication from mass communication. The ecological model of communication presented here cannot, by itself, remediate such differences, but it does reconsitute and extend these models in ways that make it useful, both pedogogically and theoretically, across the normal disciplinary boundaries of the field of communication. The author has made good use of the model in teaching a variety of courses within several communication disciplines, including on interpersonal communication, mass media criticism, organizational communication, communication ethics, communication in relationships and communities, and new communication technologies. In introductory Interpersonal Communication classes, the model has shown considerable value in outlining and tying together such diverse topics as the social construction of the self, verbal and non-verbal languages, listening, relationship formation and development, miscommunication, perception, attribution, and the ways in which communication changes in different interpersonal media. In an Organizational Communication class, the model has proved value in tying comtemporary Organizational models, including network analysis models, satisficing, and Weick's model to key organizational skills like effective presentation, listening, and matching the medium to the goal and the stakeholder. In a communication ethics class, it has proved valuable in elaborating the range of participants in media who have ethical responsibilities and the scope of their responsibilities. In a mass media criticism class, it has proved useful in showing how different critical methods relate to the process of communication and to each other. In each course the model has proved valuable, not only in giving students tools with which they can decompose communication, but which they can organize the course materials into a cohesive whole. While the model was originally composed for pedagogical purposes, the primary value for the author has been theoretical. The field of communication encompasses a wide range of very different and often unintegrated theories and methods. Context-based gaps in the field like the one between mass media and interpersonal communication have been equated to those of "two sovereign nations," with "different purposes, different boundaries", "different methods", and

18 18 "different theoretical orientations" (Berger and Chaffee, 1988), causing at least some to doubt that the field can ever be united by a common theory of communication (Craig, 1999). The author repeatedly finds these gaps and boundaries problematic. It may be that complex model of the communication process that bridges the theoretical orientations of interpersonal, organizational, and mass media perspectives can help to bridge this gap and provide something more than the kind of metamodel that Craig calls for. Defining media directly into the process of communication may help to provide the kind of substrate that would satisfy Cappella's (1991) suggestion we can "remake the field by altering the organizational format", replacing contexts with processes that operate within the scope of media. This perspective does exactly that. The result does not integrate all of communication theory, but it may provide a useful starting point on which a more integrated communication theory can be built. The construction of such theory is the author's primary objective in forwarding this model for your comment and, hopefully, your response. Summary: Mass is a special type of social formation of modern society. Mass is the detached group of individuals who are independent decision makers. Mass is anonymous, heterogeneous, yet undifferentiated. Mass is a significant term in media and communication context. A communication model helps in understanding and generalizing communication, an extremely complex process.. It highlights the sequence of every important event that happens in the process of communication. The linear models portray the process of sending message from speaker to audience with or without effect. In non-linear models, the message flow is bi-directional or multi-directional. The non-linear models are circular and convergence models.

19 19 Key Terms: 1. Mass 2. Heterogeneous 3. Herbert Blumer 4. Mass Behavior 5. Models of Communication 6. Shannon Weaver 7. Schramm 8. Endogenous 9. Anonymous 10. Denis McQuail 11. Mass Audience 12. Aristotle 13. Lasswell 14. Berlo 15. Gerbner 16. Defleur 17. Westley and Maclean 18. HUB References: Communication Models by Uma Narula, Atlantic Publication Theories and models of communication, Ed. By Cobley, Paul/ Schulz, Peter J Littlejohn, S. (2000). Theories of Human Communication. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth 7. Foulger, Davis Models of the Communication Process